Commercial Bias & The Funding Effect

The Concept

In a perfect world, science is neutral. In the real world, science costs money. Research shows that industry-funded studies are 4 times more likely to find a positive result for a drug than independent studies. This is called the “Funding Effect.”

It isn’t usually outright bribery. It is subtler:

• The File Drawer Problem: If a drug company runs 10 trials and 8 fail, they simply don’t publish the 8 failures. You only see the 2 successes.

• Ghostwriting: The paper says it was written by “Dr. Smith from Harvard,” but it was actually written by a PR firm hired by the drug company. Dr. Smith just signed his name for the prestige.

LAB EXERCISE 1: The “Funding Statement” Hunt

The Scenario: You are reading a study that claims a new energy drink improves memory. The Objective: Find out who paid for this conclusion.

The Mission:

1. Bypass the News: Ignore the article in the Daily Mail or New York Times. Click the link to the original PDF of the study.

2. Scroll to the Bottom: Do not read the Abstract. Scroll all the way to the end, just before the “References.”

3. The Keywords: Look for a tiny section titled:

   • Conflicts of Interest

   • Funding Declaration

   • Competing Interests

   • Acknowledgments

4. The Verdict:

   • Clean: “The authors declare no competing interests. Funded by [Government Grant / Independent Charity].”

   • Dirty: “This study was supported by a grant from [The Energy Drink Company].” or “Dr. X has received speaking fees from [The Energy Drink Company].”

5. Rule of Thumb: If the funder sells the product being tested, assume the result is exaggerated until proven otherwise.

LAB EXERCISE 2: The “Astroturf” Check

The Concept: “Astroturfing” is fake grassroots support. The Scenario: You see a website called “Parents for Safe Backpacks” warning that generic backpacks cause spine curvature, and recommending a specific expensive brand. The Objective: Prove this “Patient Group” is a corporate front.

The Mission:

1. The “About Us” Audit: Go to the “About” or “Partners” page of the organization.

2. The Donor List: Look for their “Corporate Sponsors.”

   • Observation: If the only sponsor is the company that makes the expensive backpack, this is not a parents’ group. It is a marketing department.

3. The “Whois” Check: (Recall Lesson 1.3). Run the domain name through who.is.

   • Result: Is it registered to a “Mom in Ohio”? Or is it registered to a “Public Relations Firm in Washington DC”?

LAB EXERCISE 3: The “Ghostwriter” Trap

The Scenario: A famous doctor publishes a paper praising a controversial drug. The Objective: Spot the hidden hand of the PR firm.

The Mission:

1. Open the PDF of the medical paper.

2. Look at the Acknowledgments section (often in tiny print).

3. The Code Word: Look for the phrase: “Editorial assistance was provided by…” or “Writing support was provided by…”

4. The Reveal: Google the name of the person who provided “editorial assistance.”

   • Result: You will often find they work for a medical communications agency, not a university. They wrote the paper; the famous doctor just rubber-stamped it.

Action Item: The “Goldacre Check”

Next time you see a “Medical Breakthrough”:

1. Check the Funder (Is it the manufacturer?).

2. Check the Comparison (Did they compare the new drug to a placebo [easy to beat] or the current best drug [hard to beat]?).

3. Check the Dose (Did they give the competing drug in a dose that was too low to work, or too high to cause side effects?).

The Funding Effect

Introduction

In a perfect world, science is neutral. In the real world, science costs money—and whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

Research consistently shows that industry-funded studies are four times more likely to report favorable outcomes for the sponsor’s product than independent research. This isn’t usually due to outright fraud—but to subtle, systemic biases baked into how research is designed, published, and promoted.

This chapter equips you with forensic tools to detect manipulation:

• The File Drawer Problem – hiding negative results

• Ghostwriting – PR firms writing “science” under academic names

• Astroturfing – fake grassroots movements masking corporate agendas

You will study 10 documented cases, then apply investigative techniques to audit claims yourself—because in modern science, trust must be earned, not assumed.

Part I: The Evidence Log (10 Proven Cases)

Each case below is legally or regulatorily confirmed. Consequences include deaths, billions in fines, and eroded public trust.

🔍 Source Verification Tip: All cases are documented by the FDA, DOJ settlements, Cochrane Reviews, BMJ investigations, or court records.

Part II: Research Labs (Your Toolkit)

“Don’t believe. Investigate.”

Lab 1: The Funding Statement Hunt

Mission: Find who paid for a study.

• Step 1: Locate the original PDF (not news coverage).

• Step 2: Scroll to the end—look for: “Funding”, “Conflicts of Interest”, or “Acknowledgments”.

• Red Flag: Funder = product manufacturer.

• ✅ Exercise: Analyze a recent study on a weight-loss drug (like Ozempic/Wegovy). Is it funded by the maker?

Lab 2: The ClinicalTrials.gov Audit

Mission: Detect hidden failures (The File Drawer).

• Step 1: Go to ClinicalTrials.gov.

• Step 2: Search drug name → filter “Completed”.

• Step 3: Check the “Study Results” column.

• Red Flag: “No results posted” >2 years post-completion.

• ✅ Exercise: Check “Lecanemab” (Alzheimer’s drug)—how many trials lack results?

Lab 3: The Astroturf Whois Check

Mission: Unmask fake advocacy groups.

• Step 1: Visit a group’s website (e.g., “Patients for Pain Relief”).

• Step 2: Go to who.is → enter the domain name.

• Step 3: Check “Registrant Organization”.

• Red Flag: Registered to a PR firm (Edelman, Ketchum) or Pharma HQ.

• ✅ Exercise: Investigate “Alliance for Safe Medicines”—who really runs it?

Lab 4: The Ghostwriter Trap

Mission: Spot PR-authored “science.”

• Step 1: Open the medical paper PDF.

• Step 2: Read Acknowledgments.

• Step 3: Look for: “Editorial assistance provided by [Company]”.

• Step 4: Google that company.

• Reveal: Often a “medical communications agency” like Envision Pharma or Adelphi Communications.

• ✅ Exercise: Analyze a recent diabetes paper—was it ghostwritten?

Part III: Scenario Drills

Exercise A:

A paper in The Lancet praises Drug X. Acknowledgments say: “Medical writing support by Scientific Solutions Inc.” You find Scientific Solutions lists Drug X’s maker as a client.

• Mechanism? Ghostwriting.

Exercise B:

A company cites “3 successful trials” for its antidepressant. ClinicalTrials.gov shows 7 additional completed trials with no results.

• Mechanism? File Drawer Problem.

Exercise C:

“Mothers for Mental Health” urges Congress to approve fast-tracking of a new ADHD drug. Tax filings show 95% funding from the drug’s manufacturer.

• Mechanism? Astroturfing.

Conclusion: Cognitive Sovereignty

Science remains our best tool for truth—but only if we audit its infrastructure. These exercises aren’t about cynicism; they’re about empowerment. As Ben Goldacre writes: “Bad evidence can kill.” Your ability to trace a claim back to its source, funding, and design is now a civic duty.

Next Step: Pick one medication you or someone you know uses. Run it through all four labs. Document your findings.